- From: Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:30:55 -0400
Peter Kasting wrote: > As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's important to note > the distinctions between cases like Acid3 (where IIRC all tests were > supposed to test specs that had been published with no dispute for 5 > years), much of HTML5 (where items not yet implemented generally have > agreement-on-principle from various vendors) and this issue, where > vendors have publicly refused to implement particular cases. Particular > specs in the first two cases represent vendor consensus, and when > vendors discover problems during implementation the specs are changed. > This is not a case where vendor consensus is currently possible (despite > the apparently naive beliefs on the part of some who think the vendors > are merely ignorant and need education on the benefits of codec x or y), > and "just put it in the spec to apply pressure" is not a reasonable > response. I don't know that anyone has suggested putting it in the spec *only* to apply pressure to vendors. Certainly that is an added "bonus" (I'll put that in quotes because not everyone will consider that a positive thing), and certainly doing so will achieve the goal of applying pressure. But I agree that putting it in the spec to *only* apply pressure to vendors is not reasonable, but considering it as an additional reason to put it in the spec, is quite reasonable. -- Jeff McAdams jeffm at iglou.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 12:30:55 UTC